A withdrawn blacklisting order cannot be revived by later portal upload.

The petitioner challenged the uploading of a 24 April 2020 blacklisting order on the Karnataka Public Procurement Portal (KPP Portal) in August 2026.

In an earlier writ petition, the respondent Corporation had undertaken to withdraw that order and pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner; the earlier petition was disposed of on that basis

Although a show-cause notice followed, the Corporation did not pass a fresh blacklisting order described in the present judgment

After the petitioner’s name appeared on the portal, he sought its removal.

The Corporation later informed the e-Governance authorities that the uploaded document had been withdrawn and requested removal of the blacklisting status.

Whether the 24 April 2020 blacklisting order could properly be uploaded to the KPP Portal in 2026, notwithstanding the Corporation’s undertaking to withdraw it.

Whether the petitioner’s blacklisting status should be removed from the KPP Portal.

The petition was brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, which were invoked as the basis for the High Court’s writ jurisdiction.

The judgment identifies no specific statutory provision, precedent, or broader blacklisting doctrine as the basis of decision.

The court’s reasoning turned on the Corporation’s recorded undertaking to withdraw the original order, the absence of a continuing basis for its later upload, and the relief sought in the petition.

The court noted that the Corporation had undertaken in the earlier proceedings to withdraw the 2020 order and pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner.

It found that the Corporation’s 31 August 2026 communication acknowledged that the uploaded order had been withdrawn and that its stated three-year period had ended in 2023.

In those circumstances, the court considered there to be no ostensible reason for clearance to upload the order in 2026 and observed that the Corporation’s action appeared vitiated.

Because the Corporation had since requested removal of the status, the court treated the dispute over removal as no longer surviving.

It did not grant separate relief beyond that direction; pending applications were closed.